USAMA BLOG

So lately I've been getting myself in trouble, for the purpose of research, on several martial arts forums. The most recent occasion was when someone posted a video of XMA-style bo twirling, showing off their dexterity and ability. I remarked that it was "exceptional for what it is, but it's not martial arts." Don't get me wrong. It takes a tremendous amount of skill, talent, practice, dedication and commitment to able to perform what was being displayed, and there is a place for it.

To me, though, in order for something to be classified as a martial art, it should be martial in nature. This means that it should have at the very least combative application, if not actively training for combative scenarios. When training for survival and combat, efficiency of motion is paramount and simplicity is key. There is no combative application for flips, cartwheels, rolling the weapon around your neck, etc. Now, those that defend the validity of such training say that it falls into the "art" portion of martial arts. However, I'd like to demonstrate how even that is a misinterpretation of what it means to be a martial art.

Although the term martial art has become associated with the fighting arts of eastern Asia, it originally referred to the combat systems of Europe as early as the 1550s. The term is derived from Latin, and means "arts of Mars," the Roman god of war. Because English is such an imperfect language, we must look to the source of word and in our context (Asian martial arts), that would be the various Asian languages.

The traditional characters for martial arts are written as 武術 and pronounced as Wushu in Chinese, Bujutsu in Japanese and Moo Sul in Korean. Because I am primarily a Japanese practitioner, I'll be referring to them as Bujutsu for the remainder of this article. The first character, Bu 武, refers to martial, war, military and combat. The second character, Jutsu 術, is most accurately translated as skill, technique or craft. All of these are alternate interpretations for the word "art." So while Bujutsu can be literally translated as "martial art," it is most accurately interpreted as "skill of war."

In our Western mind, art is something we refer to as a catch-all phrase for pretty much anything and everything. You can get away with just about anything as long as you call it "art." While there is a degree of personal expression in Bujutsu, the word art in this context is not a catch-all. It does not give validity to whatever you want to classify as "martial arts" with the excuse of it being artistic. Even Aikido, one of the most aesthetically "artistic" expressions of Bujutsu, has combative application (albeit not widely practiced).

If you go to any large martial arts tournament, you'll notice that the divisions are split for traditional and creative expressions of kata and weapons kata. This is a step in the right direction, in my opinion, but there should be no such thing as "traditional" martial arts either. We use the word "traditional" to describe something old, something dead, something preserved like a museum artifact. While there is a distinction between classical and modern systems, and both should be equally respected in their own right, the connotation and underlying implication when someone mentions "traditional martial arts" is often that they are relics of a bygone era with little practicality in the modern world. But tell me when we've evolved as human beings? Have we grown another limb? Has the location of our joints and vital targets moved? All of the techniques in "traditional" martial arts can be and are still practical in a modern, combative scenario with the right training methods. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick, a lock is a lock, and a throw is a throw. To me, a "traditional" martial art is one that is taught alongside the culture and rituals of the country of origin for that particular art. It has nothing to do with age.

But I digress. In my personal opinion, all of the "creative" demonstrations of empty-handed and weapons forms should stand on their own merit. To reach that degree of proficiency in any physical endeavor should be respected. The problem is when we lump everything under the umbrella of "martial arts." The public is already ignorant of martial arts in general, and we only add to the confusion by straying completely away from our roots as combative systems. All new students of martial arts have some expectation of learning how to defend themselves. There's no style better than another. All systems have the same potential for combative efficiency, and it all comes down to the training methods of the individual schools. However, by referring to creative demonstrations (or anything that does not have at least practical application) as martial arts, we are providing them a false sense of security. We are ultimately selling them on a lie. Let the XMA-type training stand on its own. It definitely is an excellent display of athletic ability, but call it anything else. When you carry the honorable term of "martial arts," you carry on a legacy of warriors dedicated to protecting their families and their homes. They took their training for combat seriously. Maybe we should too.

Leave a Reply.

Enjoy Our Articles?

In an effort to share information, each year we publish a book containing all of the articles written that year. This book is an excellent supplemental training tool for the beginner and master alike! To order the most recent volume, click the image below. For previous years, please contact our headquarters.